Changing Definitions of Risk and Responsibility in French Political Scandals
| Date | 01 September 2002 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00228 |
| Published date | 01 September 2002 |
| Author | Violaine Roussel |
JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY
VOLUME 29, NUMBER 3, SEPTEMBER 2002
ISSN: 0263-323X, pp. 461–86
Changing Definitions of Risk and Responsibility in French
Political Scandals
Violaine Roussel*
In the 1990s in France, a large number of political scandals developed
and many political actors were prosecuted. This process of making
politicians responsible related, in particular, to the rise of ‘new risks’
regarding public health and security. In this paper, I analyse the
diffusion and the crystallization of discourses linking public risk and
political responsibility. First, I point to some of the social and
cognitive bases in which the recent uses of the notions of risk and
responsibility are rooted. Second, I focus on the mechanisms through
which the notions were mobilized and invested with new definitions in
the course of the scandal hearings. Third, I explore some of the effects
of the changes which occurred during the 1990s: new perception
frames in terms of risk and responsibility are consolidated and are
progressively appropriated by social actors located in various
professional spheres.
In the 1990s in France, a large number of discourses about a new ‘political
responsibility’ appeared and developed. These discourses originated in the
context of various political scandals during the 1990s. The scandals were
mainly linked to political party financing and embezzlement committed by
politicians. But one of the most important scandals of the decade had to do
with the contamination with the HIV virus of blood for transfusion. Three
ministers (included the former Prime Minister, Laurent Fabius) and state
employees were prosecuted for criminal offences. The ministers appeared
before a special court, the ‘High Court of Justice’, which was reformed in
1993 in the context of the ‘blood scandal’. The new ‘Court of Justice of the
Republic’ discharged two of the ministers and lightly condemned the third.
This scandal had a very strong impact on the French political world and
made the front page in the media for several months. Discourses
denunciating political irresponsibility and pointing to ‘political crisis’ were
omnipresent in the news media. Political actors, on the other hand,
461
ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd 2002, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
* University of Paris VIII, De
´partement de science politique, 2 rue de la
liberte
´, 93200 Saint Denis, France
emphasized their success in managing difficult situations and in ‘facing up to
their responsibilities’, alleging that judges and journalists were being
irresponsible in criticizing their actions.
The use of the law in this case confirmed the perception of various social
actors that magistrates now had a ‘right of inspection’ regarding some
political behaviour and that a new political responsibility was born. Beyond
this particular case, such attempts to bring politicians to account were also
related to the rise of new risks to public health associated with the expansion
of new pandemics including, for example, the Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob
disease. ‘New public risks’ were simultaneously identified in the context of
security concerns over accidents at public installations. New forms of
prosecution against political actors were initiated with respect to such
scandals. Local political actors were increasingly prosecuted for the
unanticipated consequences of natural disasters or accidents. They were
condemned because they had to manage the risk related to the technological
facilities installed in their towns or areas. Various mobilizations (journalistic,
political, intellectual) appeared to support or denounce these new
prosecutions. The discourses about new risks and political responsibility
underlined how accidents should be addressed through the criminal
responsibility of local political actors.
This kind of legal action against elected representatives was not radically
new but had suddenly expanded in the mid-1990s. Several accidents, which
had occurred before 1995, had received wide media coverage: in 1991,
people were injured when a beam fell on a basketball court in the Paris
suburbs; in 1992, in Corsica, the terrace of a stadium collapsed, killing many
supporters; in 1992 again, flooding in a town in the south of France claimed
many victims; in 1993, a psychiatric hospital was destroyed by fire with
substantial loss of life. Although there were prosecutions in these cases, they
were typically described by the media and the actors in the public sphere as
‘natural disasters’ or accidents caused by the irrepressible forces of
circumstance, and therefore impossible to control. In contrast, the cases
that appeared after 1995 were more likely to be depicted as questions of
recklessness or negligence, for which public decision makers had to be held
responsible. This was seen in the case of a number of children who drowned
during a school trip, after a dam broke in Grenoble. The town of Grenoble
and the school’s headmaster were fined 500,000 Francs, upheld on appeal.
Several other accidents involving public facilities were prosecuted in the
criminal courts. In these cases, mayors, prefects, and state employees were
prosecuted, and sometimes sentenced, for homicide through negligence or
assault and battery. Political actors reacted against these prosecutions that
entailed public condemnation, if not always a judicial sentence.
The new discourses about risk and political responsibility proliferated,
particularly in the political arena where denouncing the ‘irresponsibility’ of
an adversary is usually a smart move. Political actors debated and finally
passed new laws in order to change the definition of the legal responsibility
462
ßBlackwell Publishers Ltd 2002
To continue reading
Request your trial